On 10/21/2010 4:19 PM, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 16:01 -0500, Clayton Keller wrote:
>> On 10/21/2010 3:43 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
>>>> Is there an available/preferred method to query for the most recent
>>>> released version of SpamAssassin?
>>>>
>>>> I know there exists TXT records to for each version to maintain
>>>> sa-update based rules (i.e. 1.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org). But does
>>>> something exist to query and indicate that the current version is, for
>>>> example 3.3.1?
>
>>> As an update package is released with each base code release, you can
>>> iterate the TXT records until you get no response. If you already have
>>> SA installed and you want to see if a newer version is available, that's
>>> three queries: current.current.current+1, current.current+1.0, and
>>> current+1.0.0
>
> Unfortunately, not *that* easy. I am not entirely sure about the exact
> details, but -- the respective next version also is available,
> corresponding to running off of the SVN branch.
>
> $ host -t TXT 2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org
> 2.3.3.updates.spamassassin.org descriptive text "1004932"
>
> Same for 3.4.0, FWIW. The problem now is the exact timing. Or lack
> thereof, which was not an issue with previous releases but became an
> issue since 3.3.0 -- which split out rules from code in a separate
> tarball. I believe to recall that setting up the 3.4.0 channel took a
> while, so the above method would have failed to alert you about the
> availability of 3.3.0.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

>
> What *does* work, however, is subscribing to the announce list. This
> would reliably and timely notify you of a new release.
>
>
>> That's kind of the direction I was beginning to go myself with what's
>> available at the present time.
>>
>> Would there be interest in adding a TXT record which would respond with
>> the most current version, the most current sa-update response for that
>> version, etc.? I was thinking of something similar to ClamAV's
>> current.cvd.clamav.net TXT entry.
>
> What would be wrong about the announce list?
>
> I don't assume you will have that script do an unattended upgrade, would
> you? Not a wise idea, in case some more fundamental things change like
> with 3.3.
>
> So the script would notify you by mail? What would be the difference to
> the announce list?
>
>

Unattended upgrades were not my intention. I am as leery of that as you are.

At this point I was just looking at different ways to determine the
current stable release version available with the least amount of human
interaction.